Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[ImperfectPixie]

Ah, let's discount the book because people abused it for those purposes. The US Constitution was used for that very reason as well. And, that's why we need to have real conversations, not this back-and-forth. I'm not Evil and neither are you or others that believe as you do. We just disagree about the law and how it affects others.

Sexual orientation is either genetic or it's a lifestyle. I pointed at at least one article where the science hasn't found a link to genetics. Feel free to cite counter examples. If it's not biological what other options are there?

Still friends; regardless of your position on this bill or your sexual orientation

I'm not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, but I care deeply for many who are. My cousin has suffered from depression his entire life because his father disowned him for being gay...my cousin is in his 60s now.

I discount the book because most of it is junk and it was created by humans. What I believe is that God created and loves us all equally - including gay people. And no, I don't believe gay people are going to hell.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

You guys are thinking WAY too deeply about this.

This bill is basically nothing. It's entirely toothless, vague, and unenforceable.

It exists because the Governor of Florida wants to be President of the United States. To do that, he needs to win a primary among a base of rube culture warriors who ACTUALLY want him to do stuff like ban talking about homosexuality and make face masks illegal. But he's not a true believer, he just needs to prove his MAGA bona fides to make it through the primary. Then, in the general election, he needs to be able to say that the bills he passed don't actually do what he's been accused of doing. They're vague, toothless, and unenforceable on purpose.

This is, though, where Disney could have some impact. His base also cares about business and if Disney says they are committing to the state but laws like this make it hard to attract the best talent, it at least goes some way to giving a counter argument.

It's not an issue they care about. Issues they care about are things like special exemptions for theme park operators when Florida cracks down on social media companies.

This, again, is part of where I think think Chapek's statement came across so negatively and may have something to do with the transition between Iger and Chapek. Iger was obviously liberal and at least tried to give Disney a veneer of being socially progressive. Chapek openly doesn't seem to care about anything beyond how much money the company makes and will blithely point to Coco as a reason they should be given a free pass for looking the other way on things like this.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I think this is also part of the vagueness of the bill, I don’t read it that way but it’s to open for interpretation.

“3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.”

Depends on what their definition of instruction is, I don’t interpret that to mean you can’t mention it at all, just that you can’t have a lesson on it.

Poorly written bill regardless.

Our K-3 family life curriculum includes talking about different family makeups. Including (but not limited to) typical mom/dad families, adopted families, families where grandparents have custody, multigenerational families - and yes, also families where there are 2 moms or 2 dads.

It is entirely age appropriate, and has nothing to do with sex. And this bill would ban that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This bill is basically nothing. It's entirely toothless, vague, and unenforceable.

The whole point of the bill is to create fear. If I am allowed to punch you in the gut any time you said something I consider religious, which I have previously said includes things like the idiom “Bless you” when someone sneezes, you’re going to self censor beyond what you or others would reasonably consider to be religious discussion.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This is what happens when you were raised by parents who let you watch pretty much anything. I thought those things were tadpoles, if you know what I mean.

Funny stuff aside, after learning about all those cool scientific words, reproduction, the birth of a baby, etc., it made it that much more fun to watch that movie because I understood exactly what was happening. My curiosity followed me into high school and even adulthood. I got my first job working at a hospital when I was 16 and worked in the OB/GYN and NICU departments, where I learned even more about childbirth in general. Some years later, I worked in prenatal education at the same hospital, which was a lot of fun.

You never know what kids will be inspired by.

I found out what sex was when I was 5. I suspect my younger cousin (by 7 months) either walked in on her parents in what was apparently a very compromising position, or she stumbled upon reading materials/film that probably should have been better hidden (we're talking 1977 here), because she was then able to inform me of the exact mechanics involved.

(5-year-old me was horrified and had to ask my mother if it was true.)

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Our K-3 family life curriculum includes talking about different family makeups. Including (but not limited to) typical mom/dad families, adopted families, families where grandparents have custody, multigenerational families - and yes, also families where there are 2 moms or 2 dads.

It is entirely age appropriate, and has nothing to do with sex. And this bill would ban that.

I think this is another vagueness of the bill problem, I wouldn’t consider any of that to be instructing on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discussing how some families have two moms or two dads is not discussing sexual orientation, not to me anyway, the fact the bill leaves it open for interpretation is sure to cause problems though.

I found out what sex was when I was 5. I suspect my younger cousin (by 7 months) either walked in on her parents in what was apparently a very compromising position, or she stumbled upon reading materials/film that probably should have been better hidden (we're talking 1977 here), because she was then able to inform me of the exact mechanics involved.

I was 10 or 11, whenever my brother came home from his freshman year of college and I found his playboy and video stash. Scary to think most kids have instant, unlimited, internet access to much worse than that from the time they can pick up a phone or turn on a computer now.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I think this is another vagueness of the bill problem, I wouldn’t consider any of that to be instructing on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discussing how some families have two moms or two dads is not discussing sexual orientation, not to me anyway, the fact the bill leaves it open for interpretation is sure to cause problems though.



I was 10 or 11, whenever my brother came home from his freshman year of college and I found his playboy and video stash. Scary to think most kids have instant, unlimited, internet access to much worse than that from the time they can pick up a phone or turn on a computer now.

There are many people who think that discussing family make-up and including same-sex parents is indoctrinating children into being gay.

Your last sentence is why regular, open, unafraid dialogue with children needs to occur regularly as they mature. It's not a "one and done" thing.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I think this is another vagueness of the bill problem, I wouldn’t consider any of that to be instructing on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discussing how some families have two moms or two dads is not discussing sexual orientation, not to me anyway, the fact the bill leaves it open for interpretation is sure to cause problems though.

I personally agree with you, but those discussions could reasonably be expected to lead to “why are there 2 moms/dads” - the answer of which, no matter how age appropriate, given the vague language of this bill could be considered orientation.

Vague legislation does not equal harmless legislation. I’d actually argue that the more vague legislation is the more dangerous it can prove to be.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

There are many people who think that discussing family make-up and including same-sex parents is indoctrinating children into being gay.

Your last sentence is why regular, open, unafraid dialogue with children needs to occur regularly as they mature. It's not a "one and done" thing.

Which highlights why discussing it is so controversial, depending on how far right/left the teacher is you could get a very different “education” from the kid next door in the next teachers classroom.

I recall SexEd being a big deal when we took it in 5th grade, we had to take a syllabus home and get our parents to sign off for us to attend the class. This was back in the 80s and it was basically an anatomy class and how babies were made. Didn’t cover sexual orientation, gender orientation, or any of the “controversial” subjects they address today… it was purely science. Parents were also invited to attend the class and sit in the back if they wished, we’ve come a long way since then.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The whole point of the bill is to create fear. If I am allowed to punch you in the gut any time you said something I consider religious, which I have previously said includes things like the idiom “Bless you” when someone sneezes, you’re going to self censor beyond what you or others would reasonably consider to be religious discussion.

FEAR!? Come on, man. It's poorly written, crap legislation, but it isn't fear. It's virtue signalling.

 

[TrojanUSC]

No, I'm saying nobody is being oppressed. If this bill actually did what you seem to think it does, I'd be right there with you. But it doesn't.

You should tell that to the little girl with two moms being bullied whose teacher can no longer stop the bullying because it would involve saying that some kids can have two moms and that’s okay.

You should tell that to the boy who confides in his guidance counselor he’s LGBT or whose peers out him to the school, now forcing them to out him to his potentially homophobic parents. Would you also support a boy in an interracial relationship being “outed” to his KKK parents for dating a black girl?

This law is hateful and oppressive. There is no “other” side to it.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Which highlights why discussing it is so controversial, depending on how far right/left the teacher is you could get a very different “education” from the kid next door in the next teachers classroom.

I recall SexEd being a big deal when we took it in 5th grade, we had to take a syllabus home and get our parents to sign off for us to attend the class. This was back in the 80s and it was basically an anatomy class and how babies were made. Didn’t cover sexual orientation, gender orientation, or any of the “controversial” subjects they address today… it was purely science. Parents were also invited to attend the class and sit in the back if they wished, we’ve come a long way since then.

All family life curricula here - k-12 - has opt out options. Curriculum is available to all parents to review. I have no issue with such measures. Individual A doesn’t want their kid learning it, OK - it’s not a core subject. but individual A’s personal beliefs shouldn’t deny individual B’s child access to the curriculum if individual B’s parents want them to have that education.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You should tell that to the little girl with two moms being bullied whose teacher can no longer stop the bullying because it would involve saying that some kids can have two moms and that’s okay.

You should tell that to the boy who confides in his guidance counselor he’s LGBT or whose peers out him to the school, now forcing them to put him to his potentially homophobic parents. Would you also support a boy in an interracial relationship being “outed” to his KKK parents for dating a black girl?

This law is hateful and oppressive. There is no “other” side to it.

Dude. None of that is a thing. Stay off of Twitter.

 

[lazyboy97o]

FEAR!? Come on, man. It's poorly written, crap legislation, but it isn't fear. It's virtue signalling.

Then what is the purpose of threatening law suits? Because districts have a big war chest then just needs some stirring?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

You should tell that to the little girl with two moms being bullied whose teacher can no longer stop the bullying because it would involve saying that some kids can have two moms and that’s okay.

You should tell that to the boy who confides in his guidance counselor he’s LGBT or whose peers out him to the school, now forcing them to put him to his potentially homophobic parents. Would you also support a boy in an interracial relationship being “outed” to his KKK parents for dating a black girl?

This law is hateful and oppressive. There is no “other” side to it.

The ”outing” amendment was dropped, it never became part of the bill.

And teachers can still stop bullying without offering a lesson on sexual orientation.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Which highlights why discussing it is so controversial, depending on how far right/left the teacher is you could get a very different “education” from the kid next door in the next teachers classroom.

I recall SexEd being a big deal when we took it in 5th grade, we had to take a syllabus home and get our parents to sign off for us to attend the class. This was back in the 80s and it was basically an anatomy class and how babies were made. Didn’t cover sexual orientation, gender orientation, or any of the “controversial” subjects they address today… it was purely science. Parents were also invited to attend the class and sit in the back if they wished, we’ve come a long way since then.

It's the same now, but they do discuss LGBTQ issues in slightly higher grades (I think 7th...but maybe 6th?) - they sort of have to in order to address the bullying that the community experiences.

I actually opted my oldest out of sex-ed classes in 7th grade because the other kids being all giggly and goofy made him uncomfortable. We have extensive discussions at home. He's a high school sophomore now and we've talked about juuuuust about everything that I think we need to, but not quite everything yet. No question is off-limits or taboo in our house.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Then what is the purpose of threatening law suits? Because districts have a big war chest then just needs some stirring?

The same reason Xavier Becerra sues nuns to make them pay for abortion services. Because ideologues gonna ideologue.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Dude. None of that is a thing. Stay off of Twitter.

There are many people saying this bill is about going after pedophiles, or that anyone who is against the bill is a groomer that wants teacher to groom children.

That's not a thing.

That's a fake narrative concocted to create support for this bill, and further push harmful stereotypes and depictions of the LGBT community.


But the thing mentioned you say is not a thing, that is up for debate. The bill is insanely vague, and very well could be used in the way @TrojanUSC described.

 

[Minthorne]

Children with 2 parents of the same sex in FL schools are now required to refer to one of their parents as “the other one”.

As in:

‘My dad and “the other one” can’t come to my school play because it would raise questions from my peers that my teacher legally can’t answer’

Also the musical ‘Zanna Don’t’ cannot be performed in any FL public school ever again - by executive order.

 

[Disney Analyst]

The ”outing” amendment was dropped, it never became part of the bill.

And teachers can still stop bullying without offering a lesson on sexual orientation.

But again, what is the definition of a "lesson on sexual orientation"?

If the teacher says, don't bully her, having two moms is normal and we don't bully over that... and then a parent gets mad... they now have an avenue to sue the school or impact that teachers job.

It's vague, and bills should not be vague.